4 April 2008

Regeneration on TV normally has more to do with Doctor Who than downtrodden estates. But this week, regeneration people finally got some recognition from broadcasters with BBC1’s The Estate We’re In.

The five part series saw Silla Carron transplanted from her London council estate to a notorious estate in Plymouth. There the grandmother, who’d won the accolade of Neighbour of the Year, was charged with turning around Wolseley Road Flats in the same way as she transformed her own estate in Camden.

During the week, viewers saw Silla get the council to repaint the estate, organise a litter pick and spread the message to residents that they have to vigilant about who they allow into the flats. By episode five things were certainly looking up for the Wolseley Road flats and residents were starting to feel the benefit of their efforts.

Unfortunately, many people would have missed the residents efforts because the programme was broadcast at 9.15am. However, you can watch episodes on the BBC’s iPlayer for a few more days – check the BBC Website for details.

Let’s hope The Estate We’re In marks the start of more coverage of regeneration on TV. It’s certainly an improvement on the Channel Four vehicle Streets Ahead, which seemed to suggest that most neighbourhood problems could be solved by a lick of paint.

Channel Four are also behind The Castleford Project, which is dubbed ‘the world’s first televised regeneration project’.

There have been at least two Doctor Whos since Channel Four started filming in 2003, yet nothing has been screened. This goes to show how long regeneration takes in reality – perhaps this is the real reason why regeneration gets so little coverage in the mass media.

18 March 2008

Changing behaviour and offering incentives is the key to advancing sustainable home building. Sustainability guru Professor Erik Bichard explains.

The resistance to sustainable change is due to many different factors. Generally, there is a misplaced faith in the ability of technology, governments, and economic systems to save us in time to avert the looming chaos that will be caused by climate change, resource depletion and the demand for global social justice.

But there is something else that is hindering the search for sustainable solutions and it is often overlooked. There is a flaw in the human character that gives us the ability to ignore, or react with painful slowness, to a mountain of evidence that tells us that we are facing clear and present dangers.

You may recognise some of the ways we manage to do this. There is the joy of satisfying our part of a system that encourages us to try to make savings, even if this means that the downstream costs of a project rocket and consume more resources. The reluctance to invest in renewable or community-scale energy schemes is a good example of this.

People also hate the idea that they are being taken for mugs if they invest time or money in solutions when others (neighbours, competitors, whole countries) don’t bother. Few can see how their small, insignificant effort will make any difference to the unfeasibly large problems of the world. Many can think of large numbers of other people (4X4 drivers, the Chinese and the Americans, or big business) that should be singled out for harsh treatment before it is their turn to account for their actions.

This invites the obvious question; are we all doomed because of a design fault that has made the bulk of humanity into determined but deluded people who are selfish and irrational? The answer is…no. But we do need to find a way out of the behavioural habits that make us appear so.

In the end, most people just want to live a better life, and in the current climate, most of the things we are invited to do in the name of sustainability seem to be leading us to a worse life. Almost anything that arises these days illustrates the point. A topical example would be the opposition to Lifetime Homes, the government’s proposals to design better access for housing.

The evidence for Lifetime Homes was published by the government as part of the consultation document ‘The Future of the Code for Sustainable Homes’ in July 2007. The ability to avoid resource intensive refurbishment by allowing people to continue to live in their homes while coping with declining mobility seems obvious. The 16 features that will be required for new houses to meet the Lifetime Homes standard by 2013 (and all social housing by 2011) will include having a ground-floor toilet, a wider stairway that could be adapted to take a stair-lift, and a level or gently-sloping approach to the front door.

The reaction was somewhat predictable. Roger Humber of the House Builders Federation (HBF) was quoted in the Guardian saying that “this is yet another potentially costly policy initiative, in addition to the code for sustainable homes, renewable energy requirements, higher densities and more social housing.” Executive Chairman of the Home Builders Federation Stewart Baseley said on the HBF website that “the critical issue facing people in the housing market today is affordability. Many young people are struggling to get on the property ladder. A disproportionate, one-size-fits-all approach to applying Lifetime Homes standards would adversely affect homebuilders’ efforts to keep housing affordable and meet the needs of customers in younger age groups.”

Those that still think that the presentation of more evidence would have sorted out this latest obstacle on the path to sustainable living would be perplexed to understand why the house builders managed to miss the huge weight of evidence in favour of a sustainable design process. One example, dating back 10 years now was produced by the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). It stated that there are four rules to apply to any development. Paraphrasing, the RMI said, first, always avoid designing anything that has just one function. This is the pay once, get many benefits principle. Second; rush into the design at your peril. Once the first 1% of expenditure is committed, something like 70% of the whole life cost of the building is set in stone. Next; design should always reflect the likelihood that the built environment will need to adapt to change over time. Finally, the old linier cascade where the banker talks to developer, who talks to architect, who talks to contractor, who talks to estate agent, who finally meets the occupier, is counterproductive. A discussion between all of these stakeholders prior to the design stage will always yield a more sustainable result.

Should this type of reasoning be the guiding influence on sustainable decisions? Of course, but it isn’t. This is because short-termism, the natural but unwarranted resistance to change, and the failure to perceive that whole life considerations of our built realm is as much a human failing as it is a policy or a market failing.

The solution is as human as the problem. We need to introduce more incentives to break down the understandable but ultimately destructive resistance to sustainable change. This strategy will convert those who once saw sustainable innovation as a problem, into people that see a better situation than the one they are currently defending. There are many forms of inducements. The offer of money is obvious, but we also thrive on peer praise linked to other types of material rewards. The future has a happy ending only if we offer positive alternatives.

Professor Erik Bichard, Regeneration and Sustainable Development, Salford University You can hear him speak at Procurement for Housing’s annual conference and exhibition: Sustainable efficiency: do you buy it? on Tuesday 13 May 2008 at the ICC in Birmingham.

The PfH conference is open to all housing organisations including PfH Members and non-Members. To register call 01457 891 906 or email info@procurementforhousing.co.uk.

22 February 2008

One of the most eagerly anticipated government announcements is where the proposed eco towns will be located.

Even as I write, civil servants could be whittling down the 57 bids to a final ten. The government’s criteria for these proposed settlements of 5,000 or more, includes a strong emphasis on their carbon neutrality. But at a conference yesterday, a Dutch academic threw something else into the mix – which I’ll call the ‘smoochability’ factor.

According to Arnold Reijndorp of Amsterdam University, there is a simple question that developers of new settlements should be asking: Can you kiss in a new town? He suggests that people kissing in public in a new town tells you a lot about how successful the place has become.

The question was first posed in a novel by the German writer Brigitte Reimann, which documents social isolation, indifference and violence on modern housing estates. But for Reijndorp this question has a relevance to the work of architects and planners too.

Reijndorp’s question gave other delegates food for thought. Biljana Savic, senior enabling advisor at CABE, said that kissing required a high degree of anonymity. ‘Public spaces would have to generate enough of a crowd,’ she said. ‘This is where many of the new towns failed.’

Time will tell whether this become the acid test of a placemaking success or failure. Perhaps we’ll soon see planners and developers lining the public realm making notes on couples’ behaviour.

So next time you’re enjoying an intimate moment with your other half in a public place, you may find that you have an audience.

31 January 2008

Irrational exuberance – Alan Greenspan’s famous phrase about the 1990’s stock market boom – has cropped up again recently amidst all the worries about the state of the financial markets.

A few things recently have got me thinking that there are certain parts of the social enterprise sector which are guilty of a bit of irrational exuberance. What started me thinking was realising how much I’d have to pay to go to this year’s Voice 08 conference in Liverpool – close to £600 inc VAT. Not much chance of me sharing my vision, shaping the movement or lending my voice at that price.

I’m annoyed because of the simplistic pricing – God’s chosen people – social enterprises, academics and the public sector – pay up to £230 – but fat cat capitalists like me pay £600. Last time I looked, I was a social entrepreneur who’s self employed and earning a living – but not a £600-for-a-tubthump living. But I also think it’s a bit over-the-top for a sector get-together.

I’ve picked it up on the blogs too – and I’m afraid to say that I think there’s a bit of a London thing going on. Hardly a week goes by without SSE’s excellent blogger telling us about a social enterprise awards ceremony/launch where the great and the good of the sector have got together over canapes and Belu. And then last week Rodney Schwartz on his blog told us of being bowled over by the presence and enthusiasm of the Chief Exec of BSkyB at the Independent’s Social Entrepreneur of the Year awards. I don’t know how these people manage to get any work done.

I’m aware that I’m setting myself up as the sector cynic here, but I assure you I’m not. I’m massively enthusiastic about social enterprise and social entrepreneurship – I just think that the reality of social enterprise in 2008 is a little more complex. Away from the glamour at the top end of the market, there are loads of organisations which are working hard at changing internal cultures, working with customers to encourage them to pay for services, and battling with the public sector to get them to match their new-found enthusiasm for social enterprise with an acceptance that someone somewhere still has to pay for social benefits to be delivered. And many of them – like me – are starting to get a bit distracted by some of the more exuberant cheerleading on the touchline.

In the recession that followed the stock market boom of the 1990’s, people in the US had bumper stickers which read “I want to be irrationally exuberant again.” Perhaps I’d feel the same if the social enterprise bubble burst. But I’d rather try to inject a bit of rationality into it first.

Taken from Rob Greenland’s blog, The Social Business

7 December 2007

With its record breaking champagne bar, its bronze sculptures and clutch of high street names, St Pancras International is unrecognisable from its former life before its £800m redevelopment.

By the time First Capital Connect services start calling at the station next week, travellers will be able to change easily between regional, national and international rail services. And the station is proving to be something of a money spinner, with the champagne bar taking its projected amount for 2007 just one week after opening.

At a conference held this week on stations and regeneration, St Pancras project director, Michael Luddy said the reason behind the success of the redevelopment is the fact the new station is very customer focused. He claimed that traditionally, the rail industry has not been customer focused and worries that if this culture does not change, St Pancras could go the way of other stations.

To some extent the revamp of St Pancras has already raised the bar for stations. A £1bn redevelopment is proposed for Euston station and there is £150m of funding allocated in the Rail White Paper for station improvements across England. However, Alistair Lansley, the chief architect on the St Pancras project, is pessimistic about the impact of this money. He says it will merely go on ‘tarting up stations in a drip feed way’.

But perhaps we should not be worrying about the St Pancrases of this world. The likes of London Victoria, Manchester Piccadilly and even Birmingham New Street, are recognised rail hubs and will attract investment for redevelopment. It is the stations that intercity commuters rarely see that are suffering most from under investment.

Cambridge Heath station in east London is one place you would not want to go given a choice. Walking in, you are hit with the stench of urine, vomit and white cider. And it gets no better when you leave the entrance area up a narrow flight of dirty steps to the platform.

To say the station information is misleading would be an understatement; instead of a map of the surrounding streets of east London you have a map of the area around Cambridge station – just 50 miles up the M11.

Somehow I don’t think Cambridge Heath station will be getting a champagne bar any time soon.